On May 24, the 9th circuit ruled that a Washington state law, requiring that
paid petitioners' names and addresses must be revealed in public reports which
must be filed monthly, is unconstitutional. Win v Warheit,
98-35412. The decision was by Judge David R. Thompson, a Reagan appointee, and
co-signed by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, a Carter appointee, and Thomas G. Nelson,
a Bush appointee. The decision says the state does not have a substantial
interest in requiring the reports. It says that the effect of the law is to
intimidate paid petitioners. Evidence showed that some paid petitioners had been
threatened while they were petitioning, and that at least one paid petitioner
had quit, rather than have his name and address revealed during the duration of
the petition drive.

The lower court had upheld the law. This is the first time that a Washington
state election law has ever been invalidated by the 9th circuit (except that in
1985, the 9th circuit had invalidated the state's ballot access procedures for
minor parties; but the U.S. Supreme Court had reversed that and restored the
minor party restrictions).

On May 5, the 10th circuit ruled that a federal law restricting how much
money a political party may spend to elect its candidates to Congress, is
unconstitutional. FEC v Colorado Republican Federal Campaign
Committee, 99-1211. The vote was 2-1. The law which was invalidated
limits party contributions to its own candidates to the greater of $20,000 or 2
cents for each voter.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in this same case that the
First Amendment protects a political party's right to spend freely on behalf of
its candidates, if the party spending is not coordinated with the
candidate's campaign.

That decision did not settle the question of expenditure limits on parties,
when the party does coordinate its spending with its own candidates. That
is the issue in the new opinion. The FEC has not decided whether to ask for a
rehearing, or whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was written by Judge Deanell Tacha, a Reagan appointee, and
co-signed by Judge Paul Kelly, a Bush appointee. The dissent is by Judge
Stephanie Seymour, a Carter appointee. The majority decision says, "In the case
of political parties, a limit upon the amount a party can spend in coordination
with its candidates certainly entails more than a 'marginal restriction' upon
the party's free speech."

"Parties are diverse entities, one step removed from the candidate, and they
exist for non economic reasons. Much like an advocacy group, a party functions
to disseminate political ideas, not to amass capital. The resources it has
available are not a function of its success in the economic marketplace, but its
popularity in the political marketplace..."

"Many of the activities the FEC wishes to curtail are consistent with our
model of representative democracy... Parties are simply too large and too
diverse to be corrupted by any one faction...It is true that political parties
have been involved in wrongdoing, dating back to the Tammany Hall machine.
However, the electoral and litigation processes have always managed to right
these wrongs. Given the importance of political parties to the survival of this
democracy, we reject the notion that a party's influence over the positions of
its candidates constitutes a subversion of the political process."

The dissent attacks the majority for "creating a special category for
political parties based on its view of their place in American politics."

HB 2594, the bill to let some candidates who use the independent procedure
choose a partisan label which would be printed on the ballot, has passed both
houses of the Tennessee legislature. However, the versions of the bill in each
house are somewhat different, and no conference committee to settle on a common
version of the bill has yet been held. The legislature adjourns in mid-June.

Both versions of the bill provide that, for 2000, the only labels that are
permitted are those which match the names of parties which polled 5,000 votes
for president in Tennessee in 1996 ("Reform", "Green", and "Libertarian").

Candidates with labels this year would include the presidential candidates of
those three parties, the U.S. Senate candidates of the Green and Libertarian
Parties, 5 Libertarians running for U.S. House, and 8 Libertarians running for
the state legislature. The petition deadline for independent candidates (for
office other than president) has already passed, so there could be no other
eligible candidates.

The Senate version says that, for elections beyond 2000, the right to a label
only extends to parties which poll 2.5% for president in Tennessee in 2000. The
House version makes that 5%.

Tennessee has not printed the name of any political party (other than
Democratic and Republican) on the ballot since 1972.

The issue is also pending in court, but not in Tennessee. Last year a U.S.
District Court ruled that the Constitution requires Ohio to let candidates who
use the independent procedure, choose a label. Ohio is currently appealing to
the 6th circuit. If Ohio loses in that court, the ruling would be binding on
Tennessee, since Tennessee is also in the 6th circuit.

On May 8, a new lawsuit was filed to invalidate FEC regulations which permit
the Commission on Presidential Debates to accept donations from Anheuser-Busch
to pay for presidential debates which include only Vice-President Gore and
Governor George W. Bush. Federal law forbids such corporate contributions to
federal campaigns. Committee for a Unified Independent Party v FEC,
00-cv-3476, federal court, Manhattan. The Libertarian Party is the only
political party plaintiff, although other parties may join later. A press
conference to announce the suit was broadcast on C-SPAN, and featured Republican
presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who spoke in support of the lawsuit.

Since the lawsuit was not filed by any candidate, it can proceed immediately
to court. Lawsuits on this subject were filed in 1996 by Ross Perot and John
Hagelin, but they never got a hearing because of federal law which requires
candidates to first ask for relief from the FEC. The FEC denied such relief so
late that the election was over before those cases could be heard. The 1996
Hagelin case is still pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.; the FEC is
trying to get that case dismissed on the grounds that it is moot, despite the
fact that Hagelin is running again this year.

On April 25, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court again upheld restrictions on how a
new party gets on the ballot (a petition signed by 97,784 signatures; each
signature must be notarized in a 7-day period; no one except attorneys can do
the notarization). Partido Accion Civil v Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto
Rico, AC-1999-20. The Court had previously upheld the law, but had
granted a re-hearing; but now has re-confirmed its original decision.

Some of the plaintiffs are now free to carry on their fight in U.S. District
Court, in a pending case called Cruz v Melecio, 99-1296 PG. That
case had been stayed, pending the action in Commonwealth Court.

1. Arizona: there will be a trial in 2001 in Voting Integrity
Project v Fleisher, the case over whether internet voting is
discriminatory because certain classes of voters have easier access to computers
than others. Extensive factual data is being sought for the trial.

2. Illinois: the 7th circuit held a hearing in Krislov v
Rednour on April 20, over a law which requires petitioners for candidates
to be registered voters. The lower court had held the law invalid. The circuit
judges are Ann Williams (Clinton); Ilana Rovner (Bush), and Daniel Manion
(Reagan).

3. Louisiana: on October 29, 1999, the State Supreme Court struck down
a law making it illegal for holders of video draw poker licenses to contribute
to candidates for state office. Penn v State, 751 So 2d 823.

4. Michigan: On March 7, a State Court of Appeals interpreted state
law to require counties to use partisan elections for executive posts.
Plaintiffs had hoped to win a ruling that Wayne County is free to try
non-partisan elections for those offices. O'Hara v Wayne County
Clerk, 607 NW 2d 380.

Michigan (2): The Libertarian Party is about to file a lawsuit against
a new campaign finance law, which requires state candidates to swear under
penalty of perjury that they have filed all legally required "statements,
reports, error or omission notice responses, late filing fees and fines". If the
statement is found to be false, the candidate is subject to $1,000 or
imprisonment up to five years, or both. The party will argue that the law
criminalizes potential inadvertent innocent errors, which are easy to make.

5. New Jersey: the state is appealing Council of Alternate
Political Parties v State of New Jersey, the case over whether voters may
register as members of minor parties. The Republican Party, but not the
Democratic Party, joined the state's appeal. For more about the case, see B.A.N. of April
1, 2000.

6. New Mexico: on May 11, the State Supreme Court refused to hear the
Libertarian Party case over whether it is entitled to a primary this year. The
lower court had ruled that the party had enough registrations to be a qualified
major party, but that it still can't be a major party because it didn't meet the
5% vote test in 1998. The issue is whether any statewide office counts, or only
the gubernatorial vote counts. Libertarian Party v Vigil-Giron,
26156. The party will pursue its appeal in the State Court of Appeals.

7. North Carolina: on May 15, the Green Party sued to get more time to
finish the party petition. The legal deadline was May 17. Nader 2000 v
Bartlett, 5:00-cv-348BR, Raleigh.

8. South Carolina: on September 30, 1999, the 4th circuit struck down
a law giving certain powers over county governments to state legislators who
represent those counties. Vander Linden v Hodges, 193 F 3d 268. The
basis for the decision is "one-person, one-vote": some of the legislators
represent only a tiny fraction of a county, whereas other legislators might
represent most of it, yet they all had equal power in that county's government.

9.South Dakota: on May 4, the Libertarian Party
sued to overturn a law which makes it virtually impossible for new parties to
place candidates for statewide office on their own primary ballot.
Libertarian Party of S.D. v Hazeltine, 00-3021, federal court.

South Dakota (2): on April 18, a state court in Hughes County refused
to place Lyndon LaRouche on the June presidential primary ballot, because he
didn't comply with a Democratic Party rule that at least 48 supporters appear at
various party caucuses around the state. Uncontested evidence was that Albert
Gore had also failed to meet that rule, yet he was not kept off the ballot.

10. Texas: on April 17, the Voting Integrity Project asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear its appeal against the state's early voting law.
Voting Integrity Project v Bomer, 99-1685.

On May 24, Ohio law professor Bradley Smith was confirmed for a vacant seat
on the Federal Election Commission. He is strongly in favor of fair treatment
for minor parties. Any subscriber may request (from B.A.N.) a free
bound copy of his 50-page Harvard Journal on Legislation article
criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for its indifference to ballot access rights
(however, there are only five copies left).

On May 5, London voters used a form of Instant-Runoff Vote to choose a Mayor.
The election was won by an independent, Ken Livingstone. He defeated ten other
candidates. The rules permitted voters to mark a "one" next to their favorite
choice, and a "two" next to a second choice. First place votes cast for
candidates who did poorly in the first round, were transferred to the voter's
second choice, until someone (in this case, Livingston) enjoyed a majority.
There was very little reporting in the U.S. about this new (for Great Britain)
election method. 2% of the voters spoiled their ballots.

In the voting for London Assembly, pure proportional representation was used.
The final results: 9 Labor, 9 Conservative, 4 Liberal Democrat, 3 Green. If
there had been no p.r., only the two major parties would have won any seats.

Nevada has a law which forbids a political party from nominating a candidate,
unless he or she was a member of that party ever since September 1 of the
preceding year. The constitutionality of this law has long been suspect, since
in 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court said it would be unconstitutional for a state to
tell a party that it could not nominate a non-member. This year, the
Constitution Party (known in Nevada as the Independent American Party) nominated
several candidates for the legislature who had not been members of the party as
of September 1, 1999, and the state agreed to put them on the ballot anyway,
despite the law.

On May 2, Nassau County, New York, the second-most populous county in the
state outside of New York city, held a special election to fill a vacancy in its
County Legislature (eleventh district). At stake was whether the Democrats or
Republicans would control that body. The results:

Democratic:

5,878

48.47%

Republican:

2,474

20.40%

Green:

2,301

18.97%

Working Families:

599

4.94%

Reform:

444

3.66%

Conservative:

241

1.99%

Liberal:

120

.99%

Right to Life:

71

.59%

There were four candidates in the race. The Democrat was cross-endorsed by
the Working Families, Reform and Liberal Parties. The Republican was
cross-endorsed by the Conservative Party. The Green nominee, as well as the
Right to Life nominee, were not cross-endorsed by any other party.

On March 7, South Carolina Governor James Hodges signed HB 3786, which
changes the independent petition deadline from August 1 to July 15 (this year,
the deadline will be July 17, since July 15 is a Saturday).

The bill also moves the deadline by which qualified parties must certify all
their general election nominees, from September 1, to August 15. This is
awkward, since the Democratic National Convention won't choose a presidential
and vice-presidential candidate this year until August 17. The State Election
Commission, which asked for the deadline changes, is aware of the problem, and
may seek to amend this part of the new law. The legislature is only in session
for a few more weeks, so it won't be easy.

The South Carolina change will be most damaging this year to the Green Party,
since the other qualified parties which hoped to be on the South Carolina ballot
are already on. Greens are planning to use the independent procedure for
president.

Minnesota is now the 33rd state to have a procedure whereby a write-in
candidate who desires to know how many votes were received may file a
declaration of write-in candidacy. HF 2826 was signed into law on May 15. In the
past, although Minnesota permitted write-in votes, no one ever tallied them,
unless it appeared that the write-in candidate had won the election.

The Massachusetts Republican Party is suffering from that state's severe
procedures for candidate access to primary ballots. Only one Republican even
tried to get on the ballot for U.S. Senate this year, and he almost failed to
collect the needed 10,000 signatures of Republicans or independents. The
candidate, Jack E. Robinson, spent $100,000 to collect 10,073 valid signatures.
The state has three qualified parties; the Democratic candidate, Senator Edward
Kennedy, and the Libertarian candidate, Carla Howell, collected substantially
more signatures with a smaller expenditure of money, although even the
Libertarians spent $35,000.

Massachusetts and New York have the most severe ballot access laws for
candidates seeking a place on primary ballots. The New York laws have slowly
been getting easier, due to lawsuits, as well as a barrage of newspaper
editorials against the laws over the last five years. In Massachusetts, by
contrast, the press never seems to notice the issue, and as a result, the
primary ballot access laws never improve.

There will be two minor party candidates for U.S. Senate in Florida this
year, Joel Deckard of the Reform Party, and Joe Simonetta of the Natural Law
Party. Except for an American Party candidate in 1974, they are the first ever
minor party candidates for U.S. Senate on the Florida ballot since 1920. Deckard
was formerly a Republican member of the U.S. House from Indiana between 1979 and
1983.

On May 12, the Republican National Committee Rules Committee voted to ask
state legislatures to pass a new schedule for presidential primaries.

Republicans want the twelve states with the smallest populations to hold
their presidential primaries in February. Generally, these are the states with
only one or two members of the U.S. House. Territories would be included in that
category.

Then, in March, the next-smallest group of 12 states would vote. These are
generally the states with three, four or five members of the House. In April the
moderately populous states would vote, and in May the most populous states would
vote.

The plan, if implemented, would move primaries in Texas, California, Ohio and
Illinois from March to May. That would automatically mean later petition
deadlines for new parties in Texas, California, and Ohio; and later petition
deadlines for independent candidates in Illinois (since, in these four states,
those deadlines are tied to the primary date).

The plan would also move the West Virginia primary from May to March, which
would automatically move minor party and independent deadlines (other than
president) to March. A March deadline would almost certainly be held
unconstitutional, which would force West Virginia to revise its petitioning
rules, which now require petitioners to tell potential signers that if they
sign, they can't vote in the primary.

COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections), a coalition of
nationally-organized minor parties, elected new officers on April 23 at a Board
meeting in Brooklyn. Chair is David Belmont; Vice-Chairs are Lesley and Lenny
Goldman. Re-elected were Secretary Si Gerson and Treasurer Alice Kelsey. COFOE
also voted to donate $1,500 to the South Dakota lawsuit, over a law which make
it very difficult for minor party candidates to get on their own party's primary
ballot (see story
above).

West Virginia Libertarian: delegates pledged to Browne polled between
189 and 135 votes each. Unpledged delegates polled between 189 and 122 each.
Four Browne delegates were elected and three unpledged delegates were elected.

Also, B.A.N. did not previously carry the results of the New
York Green primary, held in March. They were Nader 455, Biafra 86, Kovel 79,
Gaskin 24.

The 22% LaRouche showing in Arkansas would ordinarily entitle him to six
delegates to the national convention. However, the national party has a rule
that votes for LaRouche don't count toward delegate selection.

2000 has seen several significant events in connection with minor party
presidential primaries. This is the first year any presidential primary has ever
been held for any minor party in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Michigan,
Missouri, New York, Utah and West Virginia.

On May 25, the Federal Election Commission voted to approve the Reform
Party's request that the $2.5 million of convention public funding be used to
pay for the party's mail ballot process. The party rules provide that any voter
may request a Reform Party presidential primary ballot from the state party. The
expenses of such a mailing can now be paid from the federal money earmarked for
the party's national convention.

"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * -- means
entry changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows partisan
label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform,
Southern, Soc.Workers and Socialist Parties. Socialist Party also is on in
Colorado, and has *500 signatures in New Jersey, 400 in Ohio, 350 in Iowa, and
500 in Oregon.

Many parties which are organized and ballot-qualified in just one state,
participate in the presidential election. Here is a list of some of them, and
their plans:

1. Minnesota Independence Party: will decide whether to have a
presidential candidate at its state convention on June 24.

2. Grassroots Party: is ballot-qualified in Vermont and active in
Minnesota. On May 20, the Minnesota branch chose Dennis Lane for president and
Dale Wilkinson for vice-president. Sometime in August, the Vermont branch is
expected to nominate the same ticket. Lane is chair of the Vermont Grassroots
Party; Wilkinson is chair of the Minnesota party.

3. New York Right to Life Party: will decide whether to nominate a
presidential candidate at its state convention on August 19. If the party does
nominate anyone, it will probably be either Pat Buchanan or Howard Phillips.
Only once (in 1992) has the party cross-endorsed a major party nominee for
president.

4. New York Liberal Party: is considered certain to cross-endorse the
Democratic ticket; the formal decision will be made in late August.

5. New York Conservative Party: is considered certain to cross-endorse
the Republican ticket; the formal decision will be made in early September.

6. New York Working Families: will decide whether to nominate, or
cross-endorse, any presidential candidate sometime in August or September.

7. South Carolina Patriot Party: will make a decision in August,
probably between Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. Buchanan is already assured of a
ballot position in this state (assuming he gets the Reform nomination), since
the Reform Party is on the ballot. South Carolina permits a candidate to be
nominated jointly by two parties.

8. Vermont Liberty Union: will choose between Ralph Nader and David
McReynolds (Socialist Party presidential nominee) sometime in August.

9. Utah Independent American: nominated Howard Phillips for president
at its state convention on May 13. Phillips is also the nominee of the
Constitution Party, which is on the Utah ballot. Utah law forbids anyone from
appearing on the general election ballot under two party labels, so Phillips
will choose the Independent American nomination, and there will be no
Constitution presidential nominee in Utah.

The other one-state qualified parties don't expect to get involved in the
presidential election. They are the Alaskan Independence Party, the Republican
Moderate Party of Alaska, Umoja Party of D.C., Aloha Ina Party of Hawaii, the
Cool Moose Party of Rhode Island, and the Progressive Party of Vermont. The West
Virginia Mountain Party also will abstain from the presidential election,
assuming it qualifies for the ballot.

The Southern Party will hold its first national convention in Charleston,
South Carolina, June 30-July 3. It isn't running candidates this year. For more
information, see http://www.ronholland.com/spconvention.htm

Montana State Representative Rick Jore, the Constitution Party's only
legislator, has no Republican opponent this year. He does have a Democratic
opponent, but the district has only elected Republicans during the 1990's. Jore
was elected as a Republican in 1998 but he changed his affiliation to the
Constitution Party in February 2000.

On the 15th of every month, the national Zogby presidential poll results are
released. Zogby is the only poll which shows as many as six candidates. The
results for May 15: Bush 42.4%; Gore 38.8%; Nader 4.4%; Buchanan 2.1%; Browne
.7%; Hagelin .2%; undecided or other, 11.4%. Starting next month the poll will
include Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party nominee, as well. See: http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=8Note: the Zogby site seems to try very hard to move things around
frequently and make it difficult to link to -- or even to find -- their
otherwise very useful tables. Good luck.